Motions to Stay Based on Patent Reexamination: Overview of Texas Decisions in 2023
In Texas District Courts in 2023, about a third of reported decisions ruling on motions to stay were granted. (See, for example, decisions at collected at footnotes [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], below, in which decisions 6-8, granted motions to stay.)
All of this year’s decisions continued to remind litigants of the Court’s discretion and authority to control its docket, including whether to grant or denay a stay of proceeding. Similarly, the Courts continued to consider three main factors in reviewing such requests: (a) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party, (b) whether a stay would simplify the issues of the case, and (c) whether discovery is complete a trial date is set (or, how far advanced are the proceedings).
Certain decisions stated that the second factor, whether a stay would simplify issues before the Court, was generally the most important, while nonetheless analyzing all factors under the particular circumstances.
Of the three cases in which stays were granted, Magistrate Judge Howell of the Western District granted two of them, whereas Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District granted the stay in the third case.
The track record in Texas is similar to that in the District Court of Delaware. ([9])
The 2023 decisions continue to demonstrate that such motions are highly fact specific, which counsels parties on both sides of such motions to orchestrate facts, circumstances, and associated briefing carefully.
[1] Impinj v. NXP, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205020 (W.D. Tex. 2023) (DENIED, J. Albright).
[2] CloudofChange v. Lightspeed POS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84746 (W.D. Tex.2023) (DENIED (J. Albright).
[3] UNM Rainforest Innovations v. D-Link, TP-Link Technologies, ASUSTek Computing, Zyxel Communications, four related cases, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53590, 50146, 53592, 53586 (W.D. Tex. 2023) (DENIED maintaining a stay (J. Albright).
[4] AGIS Software Dev. v. Samsung Electronics et al., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146486, (E.D. Tex. 2023) (MJ. Payne).
[5] Estech Sys IP v. Mitel Networks, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209657, (E.D. Tex. 2023) (DENIED MJ Payne).
[6] Polaris Powerled Technologies v. Dell Technologies et al., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205024 (W.D. Tex. 2023) (GRANTED MJ. Howell).
[7] Village Green Technologies v. Samsung Electronics et al., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12794 (E.D. Tex. 2023) (Gilstrap GRANTS motion to stay (simplification of issues).
[8] LS Cloud Storage Technologies v. Google, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127788 (W.D. Tex., Jul 25, 2023) (GRANTED MJ. Howell, most important factor is whether a stay would simplify the issues for the court).
[9] See, e.g., Prolitec. v. ScentAir Technologies, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137647 (D. Del. 2023) (GRANTED, Circuit J. Bryson); 3G Licensing v. HTC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 885(D. Del. 2023) (DENIED, J. Williams); Corteva Agriscience v. Monsanto, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73363 (D. Del. 2023) (DENIED, J. Williams).
Comments